Re: [PATCH] IDE: don't offer IDE_GENERIC on ia64

[Jeff Garzik]

Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> You deduce this by the absence of SecO and PriO?  I wonder if lspci
> should be enhanced to notice this, too.  I assume that the IRQ 169
> doesn't correspond to anything in /proc/interrupts.

Correct.


> So the scenario in question (correct me if I'm wrong) is that we
> have a PCI IDE device that is handed off in compatibility mode (and
> may only work in that mode).  In that case, the PCI *device* still
> exists, so shouldn't the IDE PCI code claim that device, notice that
> it's in compatibility mode, and use the legacy ports and IRQs if
> necessary?
>
> It seems like that all should work even if we don't have IDE_GENERIC.

Yes, you're right.  Thinking more, the PCI IDE code should pick that up, 
not the IDE_GENERIC code.

	Jeff


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/